George Zimmerman Lawyers Seek Sanctions Against Prosecutor

There are lots of new developments in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. Before I get to them, some readers will remember that about 10 days ago, I wrote about the newly released ABC recording of a portion of Benjamin Crump’s March 19, 2012 interview with Witness 8 and said I would follow-up with analysis. [More...]

My analysis turned out to be more than 10 typewritten pages and difficult to convert into a blog post with accessible links. I posted it earlier today, in pdf format, since it's far too lengthy for a blog post.

Although it was written before the defense filed a 58 page motion asking Judge Nelson to reconsider her denial of its request to depose Martin family lawyer Benjamin Crump, and this week's Motions for Sanctions against the State, I think it is still relevant and also provides some context, especially for those who haven't followed all the goings on with Witness 8, the woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon minutes before the shooting.

Now on to the recent developments:

Benjamin Crump's lawyers have filed a snippy response arguing the defense has presented nothing new in its 58 page motion to reconsider and allow it to depose Crump. Although I read it quickly, since I was put off by the needlessly deprecating tone, I didn't see any discussion of why Crump hasn't at least partially waived any attorney-client or work-product privilege he might have with respect to the Witness 8 interview, since he played clips of her responses to the media on March 20 and on several later occasions, discussed the circumstances of her interview on television.

[Added: Mark O'Mara has just filed a reply to Crump's lawyers' response, pointing out their failure to address the issue of waiver.]

Witness 8 was deposed on March 13. It was set to begin at 9:00 am, but reports later that day said it would be completed another day, which struck me as odd. I figured she didn't show up until late in the day. But, according to Mark O'Mara, the prosecutor delayed her deposition, because he didn't want it videotaped. (O'Mara writes the rules in Florida clearly allow depositions to be videotaped without prior approval of the court.) So the bulk of the day was spent trying to get an audience with the judge to resolve the video tape issue. In other words, Witness 8 wasn't deposed all day, and another date had to be set to complete it.

On the discovery violations, O'Mara writes that prosecutor De La Rionda knew on April 2 when he interviewed Witness 8 that she wasn't a minor as she had been portrayed by Crump and the media. Despite O'Mara's repeated request for information on her address and age, he refused to provide it. He played coy on the issue in court in October, and withheld the information, basically saying the defense should find out for itself.

More importantly, De La Rionda knew on August 2 when Witness 8 flew to Jacksonville for an interview that she had lied to him (on April 2), lied to Crump (on March 19) and lied to Sybrina Martin (sometime in March) about missing Trayvon's wake because she was in the hospital. He found out because she told him on August 2. And, despite repeated defense requests for information about her hospital stay, he didn't tell the defense she made up the hospital story until the night before the March 5, 2013 hearing.

As to why she lied to the prosecutor on April 2 (he not only asked her about the hospital stay but asked her if she had told Crump the truth when he interviewed her) Witness 8 told the defense in her deposition it was because Sybrina Fulton was sitting next to her. If there's a poorer practice than a prosecutor conducting his first interview of a witness discovered by the victim's family in the presence of the victim's family, I can't think of it right now.

It seems to me that knowledge that a witness lied to the prosecutor during a sworn interview, and admitted an earlier interview was influenced by the victim's family, is classic Giglio (impeachment) material. It directly bears on her credibility, which is of substantial import in this case since Witness 8 is the only state witness who claims to have heard the words spoken by Zimmerman and Martin at the beginning of their verbal encounter. The state is under a continuing duty to disclose both Brady and Giglio material. The timing of the state's disclosure should be early enough for the defense to make effective use of it. While there may not be a specific time limit for disclosure of Giglio, when the state purposefully chooses to delay notification despite repeated defense requests for such information, resulting in major investigative costs to the defense, I think the state should be liable for such defense costs, which is what O'Mara is requesting. Will the judge agree? Probably not. She seems to routinely favor the state and Crump.

All that matters legally is whether Trayvon Martin's physical attack on him caused him to reasonably believe he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Zimmerman's testimony, which is supported by proof of his injuries and witnesses observing the struggle, is that Martin broke his nose and banged his head against cement. He tried to get up and couldn't. Using an objective standard, a reasonable person in that situation would fear imminent serious bodily injury if he didn't react with force

And "what really happened" is what decides whether or not "It was a choice TM made to ambush and attack GZ".

What legally matters is whether Zimmerman's actions (most specifically the shooting the other guy part) were justifiable self-defense.

The answer to that question does not necessarily depend upon who first laid hands on whom.

But who first laid hands on whom has everything to do with Martin's motivations and actions.

Unfortunately we may never really know the answer to that, but of course as a society we will observe the convention that what is decided by the court is what was, because that's what's necessary to have a justice system.

deserved to die. The question is did GZ reasonably believe his life was in danger at the moment he shot the gun. Maybe this is why so many people here are having trouble with the idea of self defense on Martin's part.
Look, if someone breaks in to my home I am most likely going to assume that my life is in danger and might shoot that person. They may or may not have the intention of harming me. They may or may not "deserve" to die. But self defense is not about what is in the dead person's head. It is about whether or not a reasonable person would do what I did to protect my life.

But, the issue, in my opinion, is not misunderstanding the self-defense definition as you stated it. You're absolutely correct in your explanation here. But, anyone who is honestly interested in getting to the truth, rather than simply promoting his/her speculations as a fan, needs to get beyond the simple definition. (and, I'm not meaning you)

The jury will have dig into "nuance." Just read "Lily's" post above, and Jeralyn's explanation of what the issue the jury will have decide. To a fan the case is "open and shut." An injury, with blood even, is proof that Z felt his life was in danger. But, an "injury" to a fan is but a minor scratch to the prosecution. The key word, of course, is "reasonable. The defense is going to do everything in their power to imply the "injuries" were administered in a savage beating, and were of such severity that, of course, any reasonable person would be in fear for their life or of severe bodily harm. And, the prosecution is going to work just as hard to show that it was a minor scuffle, the injuries didn't amount to a hill of beans, and the "fear for his life" is just a made-up story to cover up a 2nd degree murder.

The legal justification for shooting in self defense is if the shooter had a reasonable fear of serious harm to himself if he didn't shoot. So the injuries Zimmerman received up to the point he shot are not the sole criterion. More important is the fact that when Witness #6 left the scene to call 911, maybe 20-30 seconds before the shot, Zimmerman and Martin were on the concrete with Zimmerman on his back and Martin on top straddling him with an apparent advantage. The screams show that at least one of them was in dire fear for his life. Now unless it is totally unreasonable that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of disaster, he is not guilty. Just thinking it is less than 50-50 he did, is not enough to convict.

No one (with the possible exception of Riddick) is suggesting Zimmerman intended to assault TM. The issues of what happened and whether his use of force was reasonable are very much in doubt, whether you choose to accept it or not. It's the primary question the jurors will face.

So, the context is that people don't generally call the police before perpetrating assault, and I think there is no reasonable disagreement that holds true for people who perpetrate murder two, also.

However, the prosecution asserts that Zimmerman committed murder two, and it admits that he called police before perpetrating the murder.

My only point was that Riddick is not the only person who holds that Zimmerman formed an intention to assault. If your point is as to the timing of forming that intention (and not to the presence of intention, per se), the prosecution is vague in its affidavit of probable cause, but invites the reader to conclude the intention formed before Zimmerman got out of his truck.

She was referring to the time when he called police (several minutes before the confrontation).

But just in case you're still having issues, the point I was making was that GZ didn't have the intent to assault TM at the time he called the police, but clearly formed the intent to assault him at some point prior to the shooting.

... a misstatement of my position - and a ridiculous misstatement at that. My position is that GZ clearly intended to shoot TM (in the generic use of the word, clearly an assault). Whether his use of deadly force was justified by self-defense (and therefore lawful) remains to be determined - hence the trial.

This pleading includes a copy of a note alleged to be in Witness 8's hand, and alleged to be directed to Sybrina. It summarizes the remarks made on Crump's recorder, and the handwritten note is dated March 19.

Has this note appeared in any of the previous (public) disclosures?

Separately, I guess this motion illustrates how law is practiced in Florida. I had to laugh when Bernie said, near his conclusion, the when the law is on your side, you argue the law, and when the facts are on your side, you argue the facts, but when neither is on your side, you call your opponent names. Pot, meet kettle.

Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head on a sidewalk giving Zimmerman a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head. Had Zimmerman not defended himself, his injuries may have been much worse. I don't think anybody trying to find the truth in this matter thinks anyone deserved to die. But most of what you have heard in the media is not true. The fact that you are here on this site is a really good thing. Because if you decide you wish to learn the truth in terms of what really happened, you've come to the right place. This site has shown me that almost nothing the media said was true. We are now learning less of what Crump has said is true.

Now, some real brave soul tell me that Trayvon Martin deserves to be dead for "what he did" to George Zimmerman.

That's a question of conscience, not of truth. Personally, I don't think Martin deserved to die for "what he did." However, I also find it fairly evident that he was resposible for the circumstances of his death.

" However, I also find it fairly evident that he was resposible for the circumstances of his death."

That is a separate question from whether Zimmerman's gunshot was justifiable self-defense.

So far there is no factual answer to why Martin was still up around the T, only opinions.

Zimmerman's reasons for being in that area, given after the fact, seem not entirely to mesh with what we hear on the NEN call, although, of course, interpretation of that is at least partially, if not largely, opinion as well.

But nobody gets out and goes on foot in search of an address they've been asked for prior to having been asked for it, so I'm assuming that his after the fact memories got jumbled around, chronological order-wise.

Nevertheless, it's difficult to dismiss the notion that he was attempting to keep Martin in sight, and to do that on foot in the dark and the rain with regard to someone suspicious looking enough to have prompted a call to the police seems rather unwise.

We have one surviving eyewitness to how and why things turned physical, but hardly an impartial one, and one whose memory of the rest of the evening seems at least a little jumbled.

Perhaps he remembers getting punched, but doesn't remember that it was in response to grabbing Martin's other arm to hold him for the police.

Of course it could be the case that the only thing that matters to the question of was it legally self-defense, regardless of how the physical encounter began, or by who it was begun, is the brief period prior to the gunshot.

But regardless of the answer to that, we do not know enough to lay the entire blame for Martin's death on Martin.

For every "If he'd just gone straight home, none of this would have happened", there's an "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and let the police handle it, none of this would have happened".

For every "If he'd just gone straight home, none of this would have happened", there's an "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and let the police handle it, none of this would have happened".

I don't ascribe to the Martin should have went home rationalization. Both Zimmerman and Martin had lawful purposes to be in that common area. I'm satisfied with the evidence that Martin struck the first blow, that he continued the assault and that, through the course of that encounter, Zimmerman found himself in reasnable fear of death or great bodily harm.

Of course, alternate theories can be presented, but I'm satisfied with evidence showing what it does. I don;t think it very important even if Zimmerman followed Martin. I think it very likely that he did try to follow his movements from some distance.

Honestly, at first glance I thought this case would go the other way. Clearly, the evidence and witnesses back Zimmerman's basic narrative of the altercation.

It is exactly this sort of hyperbole that, if GZ is found guilty, will have spelled doom for the defense.

Many people who have formed the opinion that GZ is innocent of the charges against him believe that all, or enough, of the information needed to support that position is already out in the public domain. But, I think that belief works in the prosecution's favor. By remaining silent, it's looking more and more to me like the prosecutors are laying a trap for GZ, and his defenders.

All these speculations: "beat the living hell out of GZ,"....."Smashed his head into the concrete over and over again,"....."beating him in the face, MMA style, over two dozen times,"....."GZ was screaming for help,"....."Blood pouring out of GZ's head,"...... " TM's bloody hands."

When the prosecutors put their experts on the stand, actual police & military experts in hand to hand combat, and they refute each of these charges as utter nonsense, the defense's position that a reasonable person would be in fear for his life or great bodily harm, will really be put to the test. The ironic part of this is that GZ may actually have been in fear for his life, but, by showing that all those descriptions of "the fight" were wild exaggerations, the jury will be left with the question, "if GZ lied about the extent of "the beating," what else did he lie about?

Mind you, I don't know any more about what really happened that night than anyone else. But, the certitude that some pro-defense supporters are exhibiting can only work in the prosecution's favor.

of the opinion that most of the above described come more from the internet that they do from the actual statements in evidence.

W6 said that he "looked like he got his butt beat" and the EMTs have some statements in regarding his condition. Offhand and without reviewing, I don't recall any of the other witnesses saying much, if anything, about his condition afterwards.

I really don't think who was yelling for help is of much consequence. Dueling family members will claim it is their own but the FBI report that they could not determine who was yelling due to three factors should trump all of that. The relatives were listening to the same recording that the FBI was.

GZs nose was bloody, egregiously swollen, and broken. He had two gashes in the back of his head profusely bleeding.

Apparently your theory is that the prosecution will bring in expert witnesses to claim GZ's injuries were really not that bad, and he was in no fear of any kind of permanent damage.

Frankly that is laughable, and the prosecution would never be that stupid. They have not even attempted this line of defense yet to GZs injuries, nor will they. You would need a quack of the highest order to testify under oath that head injuries "may not" be serious. It is an established fact that sometimes the smallest of head injuries can cause serious damage or death. Certainly much less than the damage shown to GZ.

I've personally known two people that died from head related concussions. Both of them didn't look nowhere near as bad as GZ.

You and Riddick can continue to downplay GZ's injuries until the cows go home with your own hyperbole.

Llndzee E. Folgate, PA-C
"We discussed the red flag symptoms that would warrant Imaging given the type of assault he sustained"

I think the point being made was that the Prosecution may have a difficult time finding a Board Certified Neurologist, for instance, to testify that the injuries to the back of zimmerman's head, in context, could ever be considered minor.

many of the issues regarding more tests, ENT specialist, etc. had to do with the deductible for his insurance. IIRC, he had a huge one, 5K?, and for people without that kind of cash available to pay the bill, it is a factor. So he and the PA went over the "red flags" to look for.

IIRC, also, he discussed insurance issues with Singleton.

My "insurance" is a factor for every decision I make medically. I usually wait until crisis to go always hoping that things will get better since I can't afford to pay for a doctor, either.

I think Zimmerman is in the same boat and we are doing the rowing duties. Just IMO, after all.

Sad and difficult as it is to accept, teens who engage in risky behavior increase the likelihood of injury or death. It was a choice TM made to ambush and attack GZ, it was a choice he made to continue the attack after John yelled "Stop I am calling the police."

If 1 in 7 people have a CCW in Florida the odds are higher that the person you attack might be armed.

"...it was a choice he made to continue the attack after John yelled "Stop I am calling the police."

...if he gave up any momentary physical advantage, he had absolutely no reason to fear retaliation from the guy with the gun who had gotten out on foot in the dark and the rain to "walk in the same direction" as he had?

. . . than defense attorneys but people think it's the defense attorneys that are crooked. The worst part is that the prosecutors rarely pay for their misconduct, even when the cases get overturned specifically for that reason.

Most of this comes across to me as kabuki, albeit a very necessary part of the process. Look, I think Mark O'Mara is doing a yeoman's job here. but he has his work cut out for him. And quite honestly, as the parent of a teenager I'm not favorably disposed toward his client, who I believe showed remarkably poor personal judgment as the adult in the situation which occurred that tragic night.

That said, while I think George Zimmerman may have unconsciously succumbed to the temptation to profile the deceased prior to pursuing him, I certainly don't have any sense of malice aforethought at play on his part, which leads me to believe the prosecutor overcharged in this case. This was a negligent homicide or manslaughter charge, at best. Media notoriety is not a valid rationale for inflating the charge to second-degree murder.

Mark O'Mara is right to pull out all the stops. He's raised a valid point in his motion for reconsideration, and the State's Attorney needs to address the contention with something other than a condescending sneer. They raised the ante to the point where the defendant's life is at stake, and George Zimmerman enjoys the presumption of innocence and should be given every due consideration by the court.

I mean, why shouldn't defense counsel be allowed to depose Benjamin Crump under oath? I'm not at all confident that O'Mara will get much if anything from him, but he's not necessarily irrelevant to the case, either, and we'll certainly never know for sure until O'Mara's allowed to try.

Heh. I'm here. Been reading the latest pleadings and remarks. Just finished reading Jeralyn's 12 page pdf describing the interactions between Crump, witness 8, Sybrina, Tracy, and de la Rionda. She (Jeralyn) pointed out a number of things that I'd never thought about.

your input. Since everything moved to the Forum, I hardly ever see you. I learn a lot from y'all.

W8, there is just so much "stuff" surrounding this witness. I don't understand why so much secrecy that keeps her information the Defense. In the beginning, both State and Defense agreed to slow roll information about witnesses to make sure that everything was properly redacted so there would be no "doxing" from said information.

The Defense hasn't been responsible for leaking information that is protected by law. The State has. Twice.

Thank you for the kind compliment. I haven't been contributing much in the forum, either. My interest in the details waxes and wanes; although I still have a strong interest in the case. I think the state has been playing unprofessional games from the day it brought the indictment (it was playing games before then, but out of my sight, and I fully expected Corey to no-bill, based on the evidence), and is has to blow smoke and play difficult in order to preserve its illusion.

The "slow roll" on Witness 8, as far as informing the defense, has no legal justification. It's all about hiding information.

But, one should expect things to be a bit wacky in a political case, and that's what this is. Ordained by the governor. I am not confident that the legal system will police its own faults.

If he's acquitted, the legal system will have successfully "policed its own faults, " and justice has prevailed. If he's convicted, it's due to an unjust "political prosecution" - a theory which has no evidence but which, of course, can't be disproved.

You say that 'If he's acquitted, the legal system will have successfully "policed its own faults,"'. I disagree with that. The statutory scheme immunizes the justified use of force from arrest, incarceration, and trial. Also, there are prosecutorial ethical principles that inhibit bringing cases on weak evidence. A prosecutor can bring a weak case, unethically, and suffer no consequence. A person who is found to have used force with legal justification can be arrested, incarcerated, and subjected to trial. Those are faults that go without remedy.

The evidence that the prosecution is on weak foundation is right before us. Where is the evidence of depravity? How reliable is DeeDee for establishing that Zimmerman was the aggressor? How many cases have the appointment of a special prosecutor, by the governor? How many cases does the defense find the testimony of the police to be beneficial? This case is different, and it is risible to assert that it is following the usual course.

I think it is "risible" to claim that this case was brought for political reasons based on speculation and your opinion that the case is without sufficient evidence to merit charges (your "questions" are not evidence of such). Even more so when the governor in question is a conservative Republican who's political base is extremely supportive of the defendant.

But I understand that, for some, even an acquittal would not be enough.

Also, there are prosecutorial ethical principles that inhibit bringing cases on weak evidence. A prosecutor can bring a weak case, unethically, and suffer no consequence.

Yman, you must not know much about FL politics. If Gov. Scott had not made sure GZ was arrested, he would have faced ever-growing demonstrations, church rallies, etc., demanding GZ's arrest. The last thing he needed was African Americans and white liberals banding together to bring about political change.

but I believe that if he is either convicted or acquitted, justice will be served.

I do think that the Defense can raise reasonable doubt with every main point the Prosecution has up to this point.

Until someone can come up with a reasonable explanation for Martin being back or never leaving the area of that "T" intersection after minutes of being off the grid, the combination of witness testimony and Zimmerman's injuries, he has a solid self-defense case.

BTW - What do you mean by a "reasonable explanation for never leaving the area of that "T" intersection after minutes of being off the grid"?
Uhmmmmm, .... maybe hiding from the stranger who's watching/following/running after you at night?

describes him as being out of breath. She says he is near his father's house. TO ME, that means that he ran further than just around the corner. Maybe down a building or so which would account for being out of breath.

She doesn't say that he was hiding at any time even though she says she believes (knows) he was scared. In fact, if you read her transcript, the last time Martin saw Zimmerman he was in his car on the phone.

By Zimmerman's account he walked past that "T" and there was no incident then. It only occurs when he is returning to his truck. And after he is no longer on the phone.

So when did Martin get back to the intersection? The evidence shows that Zimmerman was just west of it at the time that Martin approached him. Why did Martin even approach to ask him why he was following him? He could have stayed put and Zimmerman would have returned to his truck unimpeded.

Without a reasonable answer from the Prosecution, I would say Zimmerman has a case for self-defense. He is the one who incurred the majority injuries. The only injury, save the gunshot wound to Martin, was a small abrasion near his knuckle. He also has 2 adult witnesses, W6 and W3, that place Martin on top.

The law reads "Fear of death or great bodily harm." It doesn't even go as far as to say that injuries have to be suffered first.

Just IMO and these are things I would want to know about if I were a juror.

He was, in fact, "near" his father's house when he was at the "T" - certainly relative to the distance he had just traveled when he went to the 7-11. I'm not sure how the distance of one or two buildings makes one location "near" and the other not "near". W-8 didn't say he was hiding but didn't say he wasn't, either. Martin didn't speak a running narrative of everything he was doing during this time, either - makes sense, if you're trying to be quiet. Moreover, he might not want to admit to being scared to the young woman he's speaking with.

So when did Martin get back to the intersection? The evidence shows that Zimmerman was just west of it at the time that Martin approached him. Why did Martin even approach to ask him why he was following him? He could have stayed put and Zimmerman would have returned to his truck unimpeded.

No idea - it's a shame we can't ask Martin. But I do appreciate the irony in the oft-repeated suggestion that Martin could have "stayed put" and avoided the entire confrontation.

Without a reasonable answer from the Prosecution, I would say Zimmerman has a case for self-defense. He is the one who incurred the majority injuries. The only injury, save the gunshot wound to Martin, was a small abrasion near his knuckle. He also has 2 adult witnesses, W6 and W3, that place Martin on top.

The law reads "Fear of death or great bodily harm." It doesn't even go as far as to say that injuries have to be suffered first.

That's a question of fact for the jury, and most of the "threat" is based upon whether you believe Zimmerman's story. Of course you don't have to suffer any injury for a threat to be "reasonable" (i.e. someone points a gun at you and says "I'm going to kill you"), but the question becomes whether the injuries tend to prove or disprove his story. Zimmerman's injuries show @ one blow to the face (a punch or falling) and two, tiny cuts/scratches on the back of his head - IMO, this is not consistent with two dozen punches to the face (not consistent with Martin's single, tiny knuckle abrasian with no bruising) and having his head repeatedly smashed against a concrete walkway. Combine that with Zimmerman's other credibility issues ("looking for s street sign", etc.) and the issue of "reasonableness" is much murkier than some believe.

...the subjective "near" argument and then there is this "No idea - it's a shame we can't ask Martin" The only thing you are missing is "Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck."

Plenty of Irony to go around... 8-)

I would suggest that there were more lumps than you are willing to admit to other than the 3 most obvious since even Detective Singleton asked him about whether his head was shaped like that. Then there are the photographs that were taken of his head. W13 said something to the effect that he looked like he got his butt kicked. It was enough to warrant a lookover and clean up by EMTs. It was enough for Serino, who brought forth the Capias for manslaughter, to refer to as "marginal."

Do I think there were a couple of dozen blows? No. I think that many of the lumps could have resulted from getting pushed back down and his head hitting either the utility cover or the sidewalk. Or as Gilbreath put it "something harder than his head." What was in the vicinity of that shooting that was harder than his head? Hint: It wasn't the grass.

W6 has them moving from grass to sidewalk before the gunshot in his statement. He even diagramed it. And it is how Zimmerman described it.

W3 has them by the utility cover in her diagram. She drew a square and called it a concrete block.

Which brings us back to the main issue of 776.032 and the ability to retreat. It is the Defense position that Zimmerman could not retreat because he was on his back. Witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman. Two of the injuries you noted and are willing to admit to are to the back of his head.

The State, via BDLR, admitted in open court that Martin had struck Zimmerman "at some point" so that accounts for the closed fracture to his nose.

You're the one suggesting this confrontation could have been avoided if Martin had "stayed put", when you have absolutely no idea why Martin approached Zimmerman or vice-versa.

I would suggest that there were more lumps than you are willing to admit to other than the 3 most obvious since even Detective Singleton asked him about whether his head was shaped like that.

You can "suggest" whatever you want, but stretching to suggest that his injuries were serious because W13 said he "looked like he got his butt kicked", or the fact that the EMTs checked him and cleaned him up is just silly. What would you expect? Do you think the EMTs would respond to a shooting call and not even look at him? Do you think they wouldn't want to waste the bandaid they used?

"Many of the lumps"??? Many of what "lumps"? How many "lumps were there? Where are they located, precisely? Why did the PA fail to note them? Did the PA take an Xray to establish there even wa a "closed fracture", or was this simply diagnosed by looking at him?

No idea who what point you're trying to make about the walkway or the utility cover. Both are heard enough to cause the two, tiny cuts on his head simply by wrestling or rolling across them - certainly hard enough to cause much more damage when having a head repeatedly smashed against them intentionally.

with something to fill in your "Vice-Versa" with facts in evidence, then I will assume that W8 is telling the truth and has him approaching Zimmerman to ask why he was following him.

You can see some of the lumps in the photos taken by LE beginning at 11:23pm. Well, never mind. You can't/won't/never will see that.

And then the nose injury. I don't even think the State is debating it since they are willing to admit, in open court, that Martin struck Zimmerman. So if they are saying he didn't strike in in the nose, they must mean elsewhere. All his injuries were to his head.

His injuries did not need to be serious. He didn't need to suffer any injuries at all according to the law. Having your bounced off of concrete by someone who didn't stop, even after W6 told them both he was calling the police, could certainly raise the level for reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. 776.032 / 776.012 for reference.

And here is a newsflash. Your opinion holds exactly as much water as mine does.

Unless you can come up with something to fill in your "Vice-Versa" with facts in evidence, then I will assume that W8 is telling the truth and has him approaching Zimmerman to ask why he was following him.

Ahhhhhhhh, .... so now we're assuming W8 is telling the truth? Funny how she's attacked mercilessly, unless she's saying something the defense likes - in which case we can just "assume she's telling the truth." Funny, that. Either way, my point remains. You position responsibility with the unarmed teenager, suggesting he could have avoided the confrontation by remaining secluded, despite the fact that you have no idea whether TM decided to question the stranger following him out of the blue, or if GZ saw TM first, or if TM thought GZ saw him and decided confront him - verbally or physically. You assign responsibility to TM for "staying put" to avoid the confrontation, ut none to GZ for "staying put" in his truck rather than following TM, despite the fact that he knew the police were on the way.

And then the nose injury. I don't even think the State is debating it since they admit, in open court, that Martin struck Zimmerman. So if they are saying he didn't strike in in the nose, they must mean elsewhere. All his injuries were to his head.

No idea what your point is re: the nose. TM may have punched GZ in the nose, or he may have hit it when they fell to the ground. The State has no idea.

His injuries did not need to be serious. He didn't need to suffer any injuries at all according to the law. Having your bounced off of concrete by someone who didn't stop, even after W6 told them both he was calling the police, could certainly raise the level for reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. 776.032 / 776.012 for reference.

Stating the obvious. If A walks up to B and points a gun, threatening to kill them, of course B would be justified in using deadly force, despite having no injuries. If A punches B a couple dozen times in the face and repeatedly smashes his head against a concrete walkway, telling him he's going to kill him and reaching for B's gun, B would also be justified (IMO). If, OTOH, A punches B in the nose, A and B fall to the ground and struggle with A on top of B, and B gets two tiny cuts on his head on the walkway/cover while struggling, deadly force is not justified (IMO). The only source for distinguishing between the latter two scenarios is GZ, and whether you find him (and his added details) credible - TM telling him he was "going to die tonight", smashing his head repeatedly against the concrete, discovering and reaching for his gun immediately before GZ remembered he had it and managed to get control, getting punched "two dozen times" in the face (with only one tiny cut on one of TM's knuckles), etc.

BTW - Why would you get off of the stranger who was following you simply because someone says their going to call the police? - particularly if you already punched them in the nose, and even more so when you discovered during the struggle that they had a gun? To the contrary, it would be incredibly foolish to cease struggling and get off of the stranger - almost as foolish as deciding to kill the stranger when you know the police will quickly be there.

And here is a newsflash. Your opinion holds exactly as much water as mine does.

Uhhhmmmm, that's not a "newsflash". That was my very point when I said "That's the nice thing about opinions..."

so now you are suggesting that zimmerman's nose was injured in a fall?

The State has acknowledged that martin struck zimmerman, so you should stop misrepresenting the facts.

zimmerman's fractured nose is prima facie evidence that martin assaulted zimmerman. His facial trauma is not consistent with a fall.

zimmerman's injuries are most likely the primary contributing factor as to why he was neither arrested nor charged with a crime in the presiding jurisdiction.

and as far as opinions go, of course, you can discount mine, but in this case we'll have the opinion of career law enforcement professionals in said jurisdiction testifying that zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his self defense claim.

Why would you get off of the stranger who was following you simply because someone says their going to call the police?

Because, if you were screaming for help, you would most certainly respond to someone answering your call.

Or - I guess you are conceding it was zimmerman that was screaming for his Life?

so now you are suggesting that zimmerman's nose was injured in a fall?

The State has acknowledged that martin struck zimmerman, so you should stop misrepresenting the facts.

zimmerman's fractured nose is prima facie evidence that martin assaulted zimmerman. His facial trauma is not consistent with a fall.

As far as my response, I'm "misrepresenting" nothing. When did the State acknowledge that Zimmerman's nose was injured by a blow from Martin? Who says the "facial trauma" is not consistent with a fall? Are you a medical expert?

Heh.

zimmerman's injuries are most likely the primary contributing factor as to why he was neither arrested nor charged with a crime in the presiding jurisdiction.

Really? "Most likely", in your opinion?

Heh.

and as far as opinions go, of course, you can discount mine, but in this case we'll have the opinion of career law enforcement professionals in said jurisdiction testifying that zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his self defense claim.

Ahhhhh, .... so you place a great deal of weight behind Serino's opinion, huh? What he actually stated was his opinion that the injuries were "marginally consistent" (i.e. barely) - funny how you didn't actually quote him and left out that heee-YOOOOOGE qualifier. Not to mention that the same "career law enforcement professional" told Zimmerman his story was inconsistent with his injuries and recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

Then again, you didn't actually quote the professionals or provide any links - just like you didn't actually provide any actual quotes for the State's "admission", your claim that his injuries are the "primary contributing factor why he wasn't charged, or your claim that Zimmerman's injuries are inconsistent with a fall. Of course, ...

... the reason you didn't is obvious.

BTW - Love the use of "consistent with", a phrase that simply means "not disproven by". Zimmerman's injuries are "consistent with" a lot of theories, several of which are "inconsistent" with his narrative.

To bring you up to speed ... What you originally claimed was that there were at least a half dozen "career law enforcement professionals in said jurisdiction testifying that zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his self defense claim," later being slightly more specific: "at least a half dozen Sanford cops involved in the investigation, as well as the State's Attorney's office." Yet sadly, your only evidence is the deposition of a single LEO relaying his own opinion and what he perceived to be the opinion of others - as opposed to say, the testimony of at least a half dozen law enforcement professionals, including the mystery testimony of some from the State's Attorney's office. But I'd love to see that "testimony" from the other 5 officers. Then there's the section of the deposition you conveniently omitted:

OMARA: And was it a simiiar consensus throughout those two, two and a half weeks that Mr. Zimmerman should not be charged with a crime?

SANTIAGO: It wasn't that he shouid not be charged with a crime. It was that we didn't have enough to file. I think that's what Jim Carter was saying too, that we don't have enough.

OMARA: To file a charge against Mr. Zimmerman?

SANTIAGO: Right.

OMARA: That was a yes?

SANTIAGO: Yes.

OMARA: And was that a consensus that existed in that group meeting for the entirety of the two and. a half weeks?

SANTIAGO: I couldn't tell you what everybody else was thinking. I can tell you what I was thinking and what I was listening to from Mr. Carter, what we had and didn't have.

Of course, Santiago's opinion wasn't shared by Serino (the lead investigator), Smith, BDLR, or Angela Corey. More importantly, in the case of BDLR and Angela Corey, as attorneys they would be all-too-aware of the basic fact that, even if you accept Zimmerman's injuries as defensive in nature, it does not mean that his use of deadly force was legally justified. Probably why they have prosecutors make charging decisions rather than cops.

Get back to me when you find that mystery testimony from the other 5 (unnamed) law enforcement professionals - not to mention the State's Attorney office. Love to see that one. Don't forget the links to your other claims: Zimmerman's injuries are the "primary contributing factor" why he wasn't charged, Zimmerman's injuries are inconsistent with a fall, etc.

Serino's manslaughter charge was fabricated in order to forward to SAO. you should try and get up to speed.

Criminal, actually. Who "fabricated" it? They admitted to doing so? Someone in SPD claims it was fabricated? You should let the judge know immediately, so the charges against Zimmerman can be dropped and the "fabricator" arrested.

He did what he was told, according to O'Connor. Just above Serino's signature, the veteran investigator wrote, "I believe there exists probable cause for issuance of a capias charging George Michael Zimmerman with manslaughter."

O'Connor told the Sentinel in July, "Basically, the implied order was, 'Get it out the door'... We wrote up what we had, the context of what we had ... with the understanding that there was still insufficient evidence for the State Attorney to charge."

You seem to be under he mistaken impression that this proves that "Serino's manslaughter charge was fabricated in order to forward to SAO." Sadly for you, ...

... it doesn't.

O'Connor was talking about the need to file paperwork (including a charging recommendation) for the case to be handed over to the State's Attorney's office. YOU interpret his statement ("He did what he was told") as proof that someone ordered him to file a false/baseless capias request. Of course, Serino was perfectly free to make a "no charge" recommendation. Moreover, O'Connor doesn't say who's "understanding" it was that there was insufficient evidence, but the very article you cite states:

In the first two drafts, according to Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda, Serino wrote that he had probable cause to recommend a second-degree-murder charge. Then, over the next hour, he changed the report twice more and in his final version wrote that the evidence supported the lesser charge.

One of Serino's supervisors, Sanford police Capt. Bob O'Connor, said in a July 3 interview that everyone in Serino's chain of command agreed with the investigator's conclusion. Serino's direct supervisor, then-Sgt. Randy Smith, also signed the final version.

Funny how "common knowledge" can turn into disputed/contradictory facts, huh?

W8 is telling the truth and has him approaching Zimmerman to ask why he was following him.

I do not understand your logic. In most cases you only need to turn around and face the follower. Except when you notice he observed you before and he suddenly blocks your way, thus appears before you, then you don't even need to do that. Neither do you need to approach him if he is only observing you from afar. You could simply shout over: Why are you following me.

Would you go over to somebody observing you from a distance? I wouldn't.

The problem we see in using the "stand your ground" defense in George's case is that usually the person claiming it is the person being pursued, not the person doing the pursuing, as many believe George was doing that night.

Now ironically this man argues too that GZ should have never been arrested. The problem is that this Homeland Security man and former police officer should know that only the new "Stand your Ground" law prevented an immediate arrest. But that is something that according to him should have never happened.

That's why some of us think that the search for an arbitrary address completely unconnected with anywhere "the suspect" moved is a strange obfuscation. On 2/26/12 he called back to 911 to report the new location to which that "suspect" moved: Taaffe's house. That did happen only 14 days before. Had the officers, Smith and Mead had his number at that time, it would have given them the chance to arrive faster at the new location.

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah I got it [**]
Zimmerman: Yeah you got it.
Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.

...Crump mentions getting permission to record and mentions revealing the presence on his end of members of the media, but says nothing about ABC obtaining their own separate permission to record.

How lenient are Florida's laws on wiretaps and such?

And I wouldn't discount the possibility that ABC got info on Trayvon's phone records "from an anonymous source" before Tracy ever sat down on Sunday night with his phone bill.

I wouldn't even absolutely rule out ABC getting their recording from somewhere deep in the infrastructure of one of the cell phone companies involved, meaning they got Witness 8's side air-gapped only once on her end but not twice at Crump's end.

In a sarcastic, insult-laden pleading, the lead prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case on Thursday called defense attorney Mark O'Mara a "craven" duplicitous grandstander who "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera."

He also suggested that O'Mara was either unethical or does not know the meaning of one of the most common words in a defense attorney's vocabulary: exculpatory, an adjective used to describe a piece of evidence that tends to prove a suspect's innocence.

Bernie de la Rionda's pleading came three days after O'Mara asked Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to fine de la Rionda an unspecified amount, accusing him of hiding a key piece of information for seven months: the fact that his most important witness had lied under oath in April.

In his response today, de la Rionda admitted that he'd failed to disclose that until three weeks ago but said O'Mara hasn't shown any actual damage and thus, his office should be off the hook.

I haven't found the response itself, but if the news report is accurate, Bernie is on a real ad hominem roll.

called defense attorney Mark O'Mara a "craven" duplicitous grandstander who "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera." ... was either unethical or does not know the meaning of one of the most common words in a defense attorney's vocabulary: exculpatory

That's indeed the message Rene Stutzman and Sentinel employees are hammering in. Not too much analysis beyond that. Will that be the next motion, libel? How will an unbiased judge or jury consider the motion versus the response?

First Paragraph:
In a sarcastic, insult-laden pleading, the lead prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case on Thursday called defense attorney Mark O'Mara a "craven" duplicitous grandstander who "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera."

Second to last paragraph:
O'Mara's request for sanctions is just grandstanding, de la Rionda wrote, the act of a lawyer guilty of "craven conduct." O'Mara "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera," he wrote, and should understand the awkwardness of other people making misstatements.

Relaxing holidays to Debra Nelson, if that is possible considering these recent moves.

The only entities who may change lawyers in mid stream are the lawyer's clients and the lawyers themselves - and the lawyers have to give a good reason that is acceptable to the judge. Opponents cannot remove opposing counsel, but they have avenues to complain of unethical conduct, and of course they can attack the opponent's case on the merits, and using the rules of procedure and evidence.

I don't know if O'Mara would be as opposed to trial in June if he had been given all of the evidence in a timely fashion, giving him the information that was sufficient to give him a feeling of preparedness for depositions and so forth. The state has been slow walking the process, and O'Mara did not much object to the slow walk until a couple months ago. The rules say the state is supposed to turn over a list of all witnesses with names and addresses within 15 days of the Notice of Discovery (agreement by the defense to participate in open book discovery); any and all statements of persons listed; and quite a bit more. O'Mara filed his Notice of Discovery on April 12, 2012. I don't think the state has yet produced what it had.

As for a continuance, all O'Mara has to do is say he's not ready, and describe the preparations that he intends to undertake. The judge is free to reject his reasoned request, and force O'Mara to trial. It would be an issue for appeal. I'm sure O'Mara is comfortable with that procedure.

Judges are supposed to be knowledgeable about the law and comfortable dealing with courtroom battle. Judge Nelson should have no reason to be uncomfortable just doing her job. The fact that one lawyer or another has a rash moment is not that unusual. There is a fairly substantial list of lawyers who have performed badly enough that they were sanctioned. Bernardo's outburst should work against him (I don't think it hurts the state's case one little bit - the state's case has always been in trouble for want of credible evidence), but judges are imperfect too.

The state has been slow walking the process, and O'Mara did not much object to the slow walk until a couple months ago.

In an earlier response BDLR argued that O'Mara himself asked for a slower delivery of matters initially. That may be part of the reason he protested late. But I seem to remember you were skeptical about O'Mara's abilities, or were it BDLR's ill-argued responses? BDLR basically argued from the start that he is confronted with a new type of media campaign some pretrial type of public opinion modification. O'Mara's counterargument was basically, the world has changed somehow suggesting this may be the future and BDLR better prepares for it. Hard to say who is right. To pay too much attention on public opinion may well delay more focused work too.

O'Mara filed his Notice of Discovery on April 12, 2012. I don't think the state has yet produced what it had.

I suppose you read note 1 of BDLR's response? Could it be the State's filing is delayed by the administrative processes inside the 18th circuit? Wouldn't be the dates for both parties the same? If so State must have filed too. I find it hard to imagine a different rule. But I can check 3.220, if that is the appropriate place to look.

As for a continuance, all O'Mara has to do is say he's not ready, and describe the preparations that he intends to undertake. The judge is free to reject his reasoned request, and force O'Mara to trial. It would be an issue for appeal. I'm sure O'Mara is comfortable with that procedure.

So he may be simply playing for time and building up to it with his motions.

One question. As I understand both prosecution and defense are present during the depositions. Is that correct? Does this mean, that whenever BDLR or Guy met with DeeDee again the defense should be present too, at least after charges?

I know about the first paragraph from a lawyer writing on the issue too, but I haven't built up enough synapses yet for US law. Thanks for reminding me anyway, and thanks you took the time to respond.

I've had criticism for all the players. I think O'Mara didn't fight the month long incarceration of Zimmerman with relevant precedent, for example; and he definitely made errors about the rule-based deadlines for production by the state.

O'Mara's tacit agreement with slow walking at the start was, I think, in order to keep the names of eyewitnesses out of the press, because the eye witnesses have similar risk that Zimmerman has. All the players were aware of the burn going on in the public, and better to keep things secret. Bernardo even wanted to gag the defense completely.

FN1 in the recent pleading has to do with filing of a trial witness list. O'Mara has filed his. The state hasn't filed its. Anyway, All Bernardo is using as a gripe is that O'Mara is playing nice in order to get the state to agree to extend the filing deadline for trial witnesses, and simultaneously preparing a motion for sanctions against the state. Think of it as a whine that O'Mara is two-faced. As a legal matter, FN1 is totally void of substance.

You ask about presence of opposing counsel. That occurs at deposition only. Other than the deposition, counsel can and does meet with its witnesses, outside of view of its opponent. Bernardo and Guy can meet with Witness 8 all they want, without O'Mara or West present.

Benjamin Crump's lawyers have filed a snippy response arguing the defense has presented nothing new in its 58 page motion to reconsider and allow it to depose Crump.

I would assume that you may have wanted to link to Blackwell's motion here. If it is too snippy to link, why not drop the link altogether? The doubled link to the defense response almost gives the impression of some type of love affair beyond in dubio, pro reo. ;)

I find the waiver theory based on the fact Curump went public weak, I doubt it does apply when there is consent among lawyer and client and the external party: DeeDee. Besides it feels this is exactly what his clients wanted him to do.

Sorry, Jeralyn, but I was simply wondering, and strictly it was not biased but critical

I am not hearing what Diwataman wants me to hear. I was referring to his youtube analysis you link to in your pdf.file above. And yes, I wondered.

Is that biased if I do not hear what he wants me to hear? Strictly, as I wrote, a non-native speaker should have a far better ability to understand than me. I was trained to transcribe US and British voices in University over here, but anyway. I was just wondering how Diwataman was able to hear what he suggests he hears. And you seem to hear it too. Yes, that made me wonder. No harm meant. I simply don't hear the same phonemes.

Maybe I should ask a US prof in the field of phonetics, if he can ask his class to transcribe the specific section? That would surely be an absolutely unbiased approach.

Zimmerman responded "what are you talking about" in the ABC recording of her call. I made several sound clips of it using Sony's Audio Forge software in different formats directly from ABC's clip and isolated it. I didn't rely on anyone else's version. I linked to Diwataman's you tube version because it sounds clear and avoids taxing my server with audio clips. You can listen to a clip I made of her saying "What are you talking about" here. If you still can't hear it, then I think you don't want to hear it, or you aren't as familiar with her speech as you think you are.

If you still can't hear it, then I think you don't want to hear it, or you aren't as familiar with her speech as you think you are.

I can assure you the only thing I can trust concerning sound patterns and/or phonemes are my own ears. And I had to do that and wasn't even bad in it. As much as I feared the tests, it's a bit unusual to not simply write down the words but the actual sounds a specific speaker uses. If I would know how to use an phonetic alphabet in html here, I could transcribe you exactly what I hear. But I am afraid, you cannot make me hear what you want me to hear. I can only trust my own ears.

I appreciate your work with Sony Audio Forge. It may work to enhance quality. But as I already said, one can get used to her vernacular/idiom. And strictly for me it does not make much difference.

your comments here. i just deleted two for misstating facts about Witness 3 and 14. I really don't want to spend time monitoring your comments. I am well aware you are just baiting commenters here and have a fixed position of guilt which you post at other sites. I am not going to allow this site to be used to spread misinformation.

There are many comments here that don't support Zimmerman. They are allowed in moderation if they comply with the rest of our rules.

Too often you do not stick to the topic of the thread. In this thread the topic is the motions for sanctions, and has nothing to do witness 3 or 14.

I appreciate that you are polite, but I don't appreciate your using this site to distract other commenters with questions that are not germane to the matter under discussion. Nor are the threads on the main site designed to rehash minutae in the case. The forums are used for that. These threads are to discuss new developments so people can be alerted to new developments and I can express my view of them. The minutae discussions are on the forums which you are welcome to read, even though you are not permitted to register and comment.

Since you have other sites available to you which share your position, I prefer you comment there rather than here.